Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramwati vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 25 May, 2026
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-47-2024(O&M)
Ramwati ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents
1. Date when Order was reserved 08.05.2026
2. Pronouncement of Order 25.05.2026
3. Date of uploading Order 26.05.2026
4. Whether operative part or full Order is Full
pronounced
5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full Not Applicable
order, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate for
Mr. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
CRM-1254-2024
i) Present application has been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 136 days in filing the
accompanying revision petition.
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 2
ii) For the reasons enumerated in the application, same is
allowed and delay of 136 days in filing the accompanying revision
petition is hereby condoned.
iii) Application stands disposed of.
CRR-47-2024(O&M)
1. Petitioner, Ramwati, aged 72 years, has filed the present
revision petition challenging the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as the
“Ld. Trial Court”), whereby the application filed under Section 319
Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 358 of BNSS) by the petitioner for
summoning an additional accused, namely Lalit s/o Sunder, was
dismissed.
2. On the statement of complainant-Ramwati, the following
was recorded in the FIR:
“I Ramwati wife of Sher Singh, Caste Jat, am resident of
Janacholi. I have two sons and one daughter. My husband
Sher Singh had gone to Haridwar for the purpose of Kawar.
My elder son Sunil is in Army and has come on leave and
had gone to meet relatives. I and my younger son Anil
Kumar were present at home. I was busy in house chores
and my son Anil Kumar was lying in the courtyard on cot.
Yesterday i.e. 27.07.2019 at about 7:00, three armed persons
came by running and after reaching they fired about 20-25
shots upon my son Anil Kumar. The fire
struck on the body of Anil Kumar and smeared with blood
and they went back while firing. Out of them, one boy
Mandhak @ Om Parkash s/o Tej Pal, caste Jat, Village
Janacholi to whom I have recognized. With whom two otherRASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 3boys were there and who were carrying weapons in their
hands and while came running and reached my son Anil
Kumar and they started firing upon Anil Kumar and while
going away one boy told his name as Ankit Pandit resident
of Dhamka and one another boy was standing at the door of
my house to whom also I have recognized whose name is
Lálit s/o Sunder, resident of Janacholi. All the four boys
after firing went in a white colour vehicle which was parked
near the school. My son Anil Kumar was taken to the
hospital by my other family members namely Pappu @
Kamal s/o Hari Chand, Ashok Kumar son of Hari Singh and
Ashok Kumar and Ghwasi Ram in their car. This incident
has occurred within a short span of time and this incident
has been witnessed by me. My son Anil Kumar has been
declared dead by the doctors. Mandhak @ Om Parkash s/o
Tej Pal, resident of Janacholi, Ankit Pandit resident of
Dhamka along with other companion have committed the
murder of my son Anil Kumar, whose name I do not know
and these persons have committed the murder with their
respective vehicle Lalit son of Sunder resident of Janacholi
have also committed the murder of my son while standing on
the gate of my house by watching. After registration of the
case against these persons, a strict legal
action be taken against them. Yesterday on 27.07.2019, I
was not in a position to make a statement and today, I have
been made a complaint to you in Civil Hospital, Palwal.
Applicant Ramwati w/o Sher Singh.”
From the FIR, it emerges that the incident of murder of the
complainant’s son, Anil Kumar, took place in the courtyard of her house.
Three accused persons were specifically named and identified by her,
namely: (i) Manthak @ Om Prakash, (ii) Ankit Pandit, and (iii) Lalit.
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 4
Injured-Anil Kumar, was taken to the hospital by family members,
namely Pappu @ Kamal, Ashok Kumar, and Ghwasi Ram, in their car.
3. As per the allegations, respondent No. 2-Lalit, was standing
at the door of the complainant’s house. A total of six accused persons
were challaned and charge-sheeted before the Court, namely: (i) Ankit,
(ii) Ankush, (iii) Sunil, (iv) Ravi @ Mintu, (v) Om Prakash @ Mantak,
and (vi) Bhagat Singh.
4. As per the status report, in regard to respondent No. 2,
certain inquiries were conducted by the Investigating Officer from
respectable members of the society. On the basis of affidavits furnished
by them on oath regarding the false implication of Lalit, he was declared
innocent and was placed in Column No. 2 of the challan/final report
submitted under Section 193 of BNSS, 2023.
5. Complainant-Ramwati, while appearing in the witness box
as PW-1, deposed in her examination-in-chief as under:
” Stated that on 27.07.2019 at about 7:00 P.M., I was
present in my house. My son Anil was also there in the
house. My husband had gone to Haridwar for taking Kawar
and other son Sunil Kumar, who had come on leave from
Army, had gone out of station., Thus, I and Anil were alone
in the house. My son Anil was lying in a room on a cot and I
was in the other room. Then four persons came there. One of
them was Mantak whom I recognize and two others were
with him and all of them started firing indiscriminately. 25-
30 shots were fired and I came immediately outside. Mantak
and two others were holding fire arms and
firing. Then I further noticed that one Lalit son of Sunder of
village Janacholi was standing outside the gate and he was
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 5holding a weapon. While running from our house, one of the
shooters out of four proclaimed that he was Ankit Pandit of
Dhamaka. Then all four of them escaped in a white colour
car which was parked at a distance of about
half killa. I then came near Anil and found him seriously
injured. I started crying by saying that my son was taken to
hospital, where he was declared dead. I did not lodge any
complaint on that date as I was seriously perturbed. I lodged
complaint next day n 28.06.2019 which is Ex.PW1/A which
bears my thumb impression. Today accused Ankit and
Mantak are present in the Court and I identify them. I cannot
say whether any other assailant is present in the court or
not. Accused Lalit is not present in the Court. I do not know
whether he was arrested by the police or not.”
6. While dealing with the application, apart from the statement
of complainant-Ramwati, Court also noticed the disclosure statements
made by the accused, namely Ankush (Ex. PW2/A), Ankit (Ex. PW2/B),
and Sunil Kheera (Ex. PW2/C), as well as the supplementary disclosure
statements of accused Ankush (Ex. PW2/G), Ankit (Ex. PW2/H), Sunil
@ Kheera (Ex. PW2/I), and Ravi @ Mintu (Ex. PW2/J and Ex. PW2/L).
From the said disclosure statements, Court noticed that there
were a total of five accused persons, namely: (i) Ankit, (ii) Ankush, (iii)
Sunil @ Kheera, (iv) Parveen @ Jadugar, and (v) Ravi @ Mintu.
It was further observed that, as per the disclosure statements,
Ravi @ Mintu was driving the car and remained seated in the vehicle,
while the remaining four accused went inside the house of Anil to shoot
him. However, none of the said exhibited documents prepared during the
investigation refer to any specific role attributed to the proposed accused
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 6
Lalit. At the same time, learned Trial Court noticed another document,
i.e., a disclosure statement dated 18.10.2019 of accused-Ankit, which
forms part of the challan but was not exhibited, wherein the role of Lalit,
as described by the complainant (PW-1), is stated to have been
corroborated.
Even Investigating Officer-SI Shahid Ahmed, who
appeared as PW-2, did not prove the disclosure statement of accused
Ankit recorded on 18.10.2019 during his testimony before the Court.
On the aforesaid basis, Trial Court concluded that there was
no convincing material except the statement of the complainant (PW-1)
and accordingly dismissed the application.
7. Claiming the order to be illegal and against the settled
principles of law, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that learned
Trial Court erred in not summoning the additional accused by exercising
its extraordinary power to summon and thereafter try Lalit for the alleged
offences.
It is further contended that once the disclosure statement
dated 18.10.2019 of accused-Ankit formed part of the challan, learned
Trial Court itself ought to have taken cognizance of such an important
document, especially in view of the conduct of the Investigating Officer,
who deliberately did not prove the said document to bring out the truth,
nor stated that no such disclosure statement of accused-Ankit dated
18.10.2019 was recorded. Therefore, it is argued that the conduct of the
Investigating Officer, while deposing as a prosecution witness, does not
appear to be fair.
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 7
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana
and others‘ 2021(4) RCR(Criminal)25, Law Finder Doc ID #1871151;
‘Yadwinder Singh vs. Lakhi @ Lakhwinder Singh and another’ 2025(2)
RCR (Criminal) 426, Law Finder Doc ID #2713864; and the
Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sukhpal
Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab’,2023 (1) SCC 289, Law Finder Doc
ID #2080153.
It is submitted that once sufficient material is available
before the Court in the form of the sworn statement of an eyewitness,
proposed accused can be summoned to face trial, as such material
constitutes adequate evidence for exercising powers under the law to
summon additional accused persons.
9. On the other hand, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana, while referring to the stand taken by the State, submits that as
per the investigation, respondent No. 2-Lalit, was found innocent and, for
that purpose, statements of villagers were also recorded.
10. Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 2, while defending the impugned order, submits that in
her statement complainant did not assign any specific role to the said
respondent except alleging his presence at the door of the house. It is
further submitted that even in the FIR, it is not mentioned that respondent
No. 2 was armed with any weapon; however, while deposing as PW-1
before the Court, she alleged that Lalit was holding a weapon while
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 8
standing outside the gate. Thus, there is a contradictory stand in the
complainant’s version in the FIR and her testimony before the Court.
Accordingly, he submits that there is no merit in the revision
petition, that application has been rightly declined, and prays for
dismissal of the present revision petition.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record available before this Court.
12. After hearing the respective counsel and perusing the record,
it emerges as under:–
i) The incident took place on 27.07.2019, and the FIR was registered in
respect of the incident on the statement of the deceased’s mother, who
claims herself to be an eyewitness.
ii) The presence of respondent No. 2 and his identification is mentioned
in the FIR; however, there is no allegation that he was carrying any
weapon.
iii) While appearing in the witness box, the eyewitness deposed that
respondent No. 2 was present outside the gate and was also holding a
weapon, though no description of the weapon has been given.
iv) In cross-examination, she clearly stated that except Mantak and
Lalit, she was not acquainted with any of the accused prior to the
incident. Thus, the identity and prior acquaintance of the witness with
respondent No. 2 stand established from her own testimony elicited
during cross-examination.
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 9
13. It further emerges from the cross-examination of the
eyewitness that the assailants were not in muffled faces and that she is an
illiterate lady.
In the disclosure statement dated 18.10.2019 of accused-
Ankit, it was recorded that respondent No. 2-Lalit, had identified the
house of Anil and was present at the scene, and that his information
facilitated the commission of the murder of Anil.
It is a matter of surprise that Investigating Officer, while
deposing before the Court, did not state anything about the said
disclosure statement dated 18.10.2019. Even the Trial Court placed
reliance upon other disclosure statements and the facts recorded therein,
without any discussion as to whether such facts recorded in disclosure
statements have any evidentiary value regarding the manner of
commission of the offence.
Since SI Shahid Ahmed is the scribe of the disclosure
statement dated 18.10.2019, being an impartial officer, it was expected of
him to depose regarding the said disclosure statement of accused Ankit
and to state whether the facts recorded therein were found to be true or
not.
However, Trial Court has placed greater reliance on the
disclosure statements of the accused and the supplementary disclosure
statements, including that of accused Ankit, recorded later. In the view of
this Court, such disclosure statements cannot carry relevance at this stage
as compared to the sworn testimony of the eyewitness, PW-2 Ramwati.
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 10
Therefore, it appears that the eyewitness account has been given less
weight than the contents of the disclosure statements.
In fact, once the Trial Court had taken note of the disclosure
statement dated 18.10.2019 of accused-Ankit as part of the challan, it
ought to have sought clarification from SI Shahid Ahmed as to why he
remained silent regarding the said disclosure statement, or at least
discussed the conduct of the Investigating Officer in the order.
14. Although the proposed accused in the present case is
asserted to have shared a common intention by acting as a lookout at the
gate rather than being part of a larger unlawful assembly, the overarching
legal threshold governing the summoning of an additional accused
remains identical. At the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court is not
permitted to dissect the exact variance in overt physical acts or mini-
evaluate changing statements if a strong prima facie case of involvement
exists. On this point, Paragraph No. 14.2 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
decision in Manjeet Singh‘s case (supra) directly guides this Court’s view:
“14.2 Now so far as the reasoning given by the High
Court while dismissing the revision application and
confirming the order passed by the Learned trial Court
dismissing the application under section 319 CrPC, 1973 is
concerned, the High Court itself has observed that PW1
Manjeet Singh is the injured witness and therefore his
presence cannot be doubted as he has received fire arm
injuries along with the deceased, However, thereafter the
High Court has observed that the statement of Manjeet
Singh indicates over implication and that no injury has been
attributed to either of the respondents except they were
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 11armed with weapons and the concerned injuries are
attributed only to Sartaj Singh even for the sake of
arguments someone was present with Sartaj Singh it cannot
be said that they had any common intention or there was
meeting of mind or knew that Sartaj would be firing. The
aforesaid reasonings are not sustainable at all. At the stage
of exercising the powers under section 319 CrPC, 1973 the
Court is not required to appreciate and/or enter on the
merits of the allegations of the case. The High Court has lost
sight of the fact that the allegations against all the accused
persons right from the very beginning were for the offences
under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 & 149 IPC. The High
Court has failed to appreciate the fact that for attracting the
offence under Section 149 IPC only forming part of unlawful
assembly is sufficient and the individual role and/or overt
act is immaterial. Therefore, the reasoning given by the High
Court that no injury has been attributed to either of the
respondents except that they were armed with weapons and
therefore, they cannot be added as accused is unsustainable.
The Learned trial Court and the High Court have failed to
exercise the jurisdiction and/or powers while exercising the
powers under section 319 CrPC, 1973.”
Therefore, at this stage, this Court is of the view that the
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (358 of BNSS) was required to be
exercised. Though the factual matrix and circumstances discussed are
slightly different, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application.
16. While examining the impugned order, this Court is
conscious of the stage of the trial, as the eyewitness has already been
examined with respect to the other challaned accused and has supported
the prosecution case. In the event of allowing the application for
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 12
summoning respondent No. 2 for a joint trial, witnesses may have to be
recalled, and there is a possibility that the accused, now on bail, may
influence or pressurise the eyewitness (Ramwati, PW-1). In this regard,
reliance is placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Sukhpal
Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab (supra) as well as the judgment in
Yadwinder Singh vs. Lakhi @ Lakhwinder Singh and another (supra),
which have been followed in recent decisions.
The principles laid down in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra),
particularly paragraph 33(a) to (c) of the judgment, provide guidelines
regarding the conduct of trial qua additional accused, contemplating
different possible situations during trial. The principle of holding a
separate trial was again noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Yadwinder Singh (supra), wherein paragraph 14 refers to paragraph 34 of
Sukhpal Singh Khaira case supra, which reads as under:—
“34. Though Section 319 CrPC provides that such person
summoned as per sub-section (1) thereto could be jointly
tried together with the other accused, keeping in view the
power available to the court under Section 223 CrPC to
hold a joint trial, it would also be open to the learned
Sessions Judge at the point of considering the application
under Section 319 CrPC and deciding to summon the
additional accused, to also take a decision as to whether a
joint trial is to be held after summoning such accused by
deferring the judgment being passed against the tried
accused. If a conclusion is reached that the fresh trial to be
conducted against the newly added accused could be
separately tried, in such event it would be open for the
learned Sessions Judge to order so and proceed to pass the
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 13judgment and conclude the trial insofar as the accused
against whom it had originally proceeded and thereafter
proceed in the case of the newly added accused. However,
what is important is that the decision to summon an
additional accused either suo motu by the court or on an
application under Section 319 CrPC shall in all eventuality
be considered and disposed of before the judgment of
conviction and sentence is pronounced, as otherwise, the
trial would get concluded and the court will get divested of
the power under Section 319 CrPC. Since a power is
available to the court to decide as to whether a joint trial is
required to be held or not, this Court was justified in holding
the phrase, “could be tried together with the accused ” as
contained in Section 319(1) CrPC, to be directory as held in
Shashikant Singh [Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh,
(2002) 5 SCC 738: 2002 SCC (Cri) 1203] which in our
opinion is the correct view.”
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the stage of the trial,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not
sustain and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the present revision
petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside.
18. Ordered accordingly.
19. Consequently, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
(corresponding to Section 358 of BNSS) seeking summoning of
additional accused Lalit (respondent No. 2) is allowed. Trial Court shall
proceed further in accordance with law by summoning the said accused
and conducting the trial in accordance with the observations made
hereinabove as well as the guidelines laid down by the Constitution
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-47-2024(O&M) 14
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State
of Punjab.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
25.05.2026
Rashmi
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
RASHMI
2026.05.26 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
